It's a new time. They can't just make up lies and get away with it

[Nightjock]

Capeheart and his shameless behavior in the Bernie picture story. It died a quick death. I am still hoping he apologizes...

The innuendos Bernie was not seen at key moments in the 1960's civil rights movement....DEBUNKED IMMEDIATELY

ect. ect.

The "intertoobs" and millions of Americans are the real firewall in this campaign


I was not sure if I would live to a real political revolution but I am positive it is happening right now.

If Howard Dean was running today and did that "scream" it would have been laughed off within hours and he would have raised 5 million dollars because they tried to take him down for something so ridiculous.

Go Bernie!!!! I have never, EVER loved a politician more than this remarkable man.

[speaktruthtopower]

1. Lies have to be internet proof now...

[certainot]

96. sorry, rw radio reaches 50 mil a week and there is no

fact checking for that.

the internet is still somewhat democratic, like tv and other forms of print. you can search for the truth or you can go to your favorite websites and assume they wiill give you the truth, and there is always another version a click or a page away.

the vast majority of republicans and idiots voting for them won't see or hear the corrections when bernie gets the nomination and rw radio starts swiftboating him- like they have been doing to hillary for 25 years.

so far mostly they just call him a commie. but they'll make stuff up and repeat it until it becomes true to tens of millions who will never hear a correction or challenge because the left gives those 1200 coordinated radio stations and those 400 professional liars a free speech free ride.

if bernie wins the nomination and limbaugh and spawn say bernie lied about his civil rights involvement, bernie's supporters may be frustrated if they keep hearing it repeated on the internet and on TV but like most of the crap republicans have shat on this country the last 30 years they will never know where most of it came from, and what makes it possible.

[JDPriestly]

100. The people who listen to that right-wing radio nonsense aren't going to vote Democratic

anyway. Keep listening to Thom Hartmann and Cenk and all the independent radio stations on-line. That's the way to end the right-wing talkers on AM radio.

[certainot]

104. we're in this mess because the left/dems ignore talk radio

the secondary effect of blasting 50 mil a week with unchallenged think tank scripted bullshit is huge. it enables and intimidates media and politicians to a significant degree. and now it is (finally) getting credit for keeping trump and cruz over bush rubio, altho rubio is getting a pass now from some of them after they killed him for compromising with dems on immigration. unfortunately while it's finally destroying the gop, they're taking the country with them.

in most parts of the US, there are no free easy options for rw radio if you want politics and current events. all of those talk radio states have two senators- the ones who confirm or obstruct supremes. it's not just the teabag base that it effects, especially considering how many elections are won/lost with small margins.

there will be no real democracy in this country as long as the 1% can use those 1200 coordinated radio stations to sell their shit and attack dem candidates all they want. there can be no facts based rational discussions an any major issue without the talk radio gods distorting it.

they put carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country yelling your mother is a whore, your father is a traitor, and your ideas are treasonous. and liberals walk by with their fingers in their ears.

that has not worked.

and what is incredible is that that 260+of the loudest of those stations, almost a half of the limbaugh stations, depend heavily on 90 major universities - they broadcast the sports for a pittance and use the school logo for advertising and community cred.

here in NM i just heard the UNM lobos/limbaugh station spend hours of local blowhard time trying to kill two efforts to increase funding for education in the state!

[PatrickforO]

126. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine then.

[certainot]

130. the way to destroy rw radio is to stop letting our universities

endorse it. they have no excuse and their mission statements would prohibit it if taken seriously.

imo a new FD will never pass, and many on liberal blogs believe the rw 'fee speech' bullshit about it

these 90 unis keep it going. if one or two were to feel the pressure and declare they will not renew the licensing agreement until apolitical stations can be found to broadcast their sports, rw media and pols would freak out, other unis would be shamed into following, and advertisers would flee. the rw talk radio monopoly would fall apart.

those schools have NO excuse for supporting global warming denial, and trump, and all the other bigotry and GOP corporate propaganda

[PatrickforO]

148. Thank you for this link. I had NO idea about this, simply because

I hadn't made the connection. But it is true.

And, yes, Congress would never bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

I think you should do an OP on this in General Discussion, urging DU people who are big in their alumni associations to start agitating.

Seriously. Look how successful boycotts with advertisers have been in getting Rush off a growing number of stations. Yes, it's been slow, but it's been steady.

[certainot]

159. i have done a few. doesn't seem to work

it hurts liberals heads to even think about rw radio, much less turn off the music and listen to it.

[PatrickforO]

174. Yeah, you know what's funny is my cousin is kind of a TP guy.

Talk radio and Fox 'news' got to him and now it's nearly impossible to talk to him. He's even got a little shower radio so he doesn't have to miss a second...

[certainot]

175. i think it's the certainty that authoritarians want -

to ease the fear

the simple certainty removes doubt and reduces all the natural complications and uncertainty that make the world go round into simple absolutes- yes no , black, white, right wrong- makes it easy to judge and they get the pleasure of certitude when they do it

guys like limbaugh and savage and trump and cruz have the royal certitude of kings and their servants- requires huge denial capability

this guy explains it:

[LiberalLovinLug]

173. If I had another heart to give you'd get it

IMO this is the biggest factor in the way of moving forward and in the future, to enact President Sanders initiatives... the stupification of the American voter. Sure Democrats will not listen. And hard core Republicans will. But it is the mushy middle who it effects the most. The mostly apolitical person that just wants something to listen to on his/her drive to work. Its the way they are the only game in town and so cover all those university and professional sporting events, and right before and right after they are screaming about Obama and the Dems ruining the country. Its impossible to get away from it. It becomes a kind of subliminal messaging. All they have to do is convince enough voters that do not have time or inclination to dig deeper or search out the other side of opinions, that when they get to the voting booth, they don't know much, but they do know how all they have heard is that Obama and the Dems have been a disaster, so it wouldn't hurt to give the other guys a chance.

I don't get why the Dems are not more concerned with this. as the article says "95% of political talk radio is Republican"! Why not frame the argument as - "You (Republicans) always scream about the unfairness in media because it is saturated with librul content and bias. So you should finally welcome the reintroduction of the Fairness Act, so that finally your side will get their fair time" I'd love to hear their response to that.

[bvar22]

163. We are in this mess because Bill Clinton...

..signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with a BIG Smile on his face.
This deregulated the Media in the USA and allowed "ownership" of as many Media Outlets as a person or Corporation could buy.

What could possibly go wrong?

[certainot]

164. no, blaming clinton and the tel com act is a miscalculation

and blaming the symptoms. the cause has to be fixed before we can reregulate.

fairness doctrine prevented the PSYOPS we have now where big lies could be repeated continuously with no rebuttal.

the tel com act was pushed by 1000 coordinated radio stations and came 9 years after reagan killed the FD in 87 and it. media deregulation was a regular chant on rw radio.

didn’t matter which republicans or idiot democrats owned those radio stations, limbaugh was already on 500 stations that would not offer liberal talk. how much more message consolidation is necessary?

it is that talk radio monopoly and 1200 think tank coordinated radio stations that gives us cruz and trump and the obstruction and deregulation, and enables and intimidates the other media, pushing it rightward.

[Dustlawyer]

116. RW radio is what has pushed the Republican base all the way to Zombie Land!

Call it what news turns into when you can legally call it, "entertainment!"

[certainot]

121. there is a growing recognition by 'accepted' commentators

that this MIC PSYOPS is the major cause of the GOP insanity/trump/cruz.

fucking finally.

they tried to sell it as entertainment and the left called what is clearly a coordinated pro-corporate MIC propaganda operation, 'free speech'

[Dustlawyer]

125. When Fox News in Florida knowingly lied and had a verdict rendered against them,

the Court of Appeals overturned the verdict and said it was not news, but "entertainment." They use the public airwaves under license, bust them up and go back to having to verify stories and report the truth! No more entertainment bull shit!

[bvar22]

165. ^This^

Thanks.

[truthseeker1]

138. Doubt many Millennials are listening to RW radio, or AM anything nt

[certainot]

157. a lot of activism is getting negated because of it

how many millenials and students and protestors is one ignorant fascist republican blowhard with a big radio station, hiding behind call screeners, or 600 like limbaugh, worth?

and more than 1/4 of those stations are endorsed by 90 major universities.

it's fucking absurd, and we're still getting our liberal internet ass kicked by old radio.

[blm]

2. If Capehart had made the story up I'd be jumping along with y'all, but, it's University of Chicago's

fault for getting it wrong all these decades - Capehart's mistake was in accepting what the archives claimed and not DOUBLECHECKING. There is something good from this discovery, though - I think more photographers should come out and check their work being held in these archives.

PS: Dean's campaign was collapsing in the month before the scream. Revisionism is not healthy.

[BillZBubb]

3. Uh, no. The archives were recently changed by a Hillary operative.

It was part of the whole Swift Boating attempt.

Capehart's mistake is that he is a hack and involved in an obvious political smear.

[HooptieWagon]

11. Not exactly, as I understand.

The original request to change the picture caption was by an alumnus, Sally Cook, who may be a Clinton supporter...IDK. Additional witnesses stepped up, including Rappaport's ex-wife of 5 years near that time period, who said it was Rappaport. They are actually Sanders supporters. The photographer told the archivist that the photo was Sanders, but didn't have the documentation handy. Based on this, the archivist changed the subjects ID to Rappaport, and Time Magazine reported this in Nov.
Later (not exactly sure when), the photographer found the documentation and photo out takes proving it was indeed Sanders. The archivist changed the ID of the photo back to Sanders in January, and Time issued a retraction.
Now, in Feb, Capehart writes his smear job, apparently just regurgitating the Nov Time article because A) He didn't contact the archivist, who would have told him the photo ID was changed back to Sanders in Jan, B) never saw (or ignored) the Time retraction, and C) never contacted the photographer who had proof it was Sanders.

[BillZBubb]

13. What drove Sally Cook to run and try to change the name of the photo?

Have you ever heard of anything like that on an obscure 50 year old photo?

Something is very fishy about that.

[HooptieWagon]

17. She reportedly saw the photo on Sanders website...

...and thought it was Rappaport. IDK if she supports Sanders or Clinton, but several other alumni from that time, who def are Sanders supporters, also ID'd the subject person as Rappaport. The photographer later located his documentation that it was indeed Sanders. IDK Sally Cook's motivation, but the other witnesses do appear to have been sincere, though mistaken. Our memories can fool us...we remember what we want to remember. The two individuals do bear a bit of resemblance, but the photojournalists documentation is conclusive proof.

[BillZBubb]

24. But Cook took the action to change the label. The others didn't.

Again something is extremely fishy about that. If you don't think that is the case, I can't change your mind.

I think it was part of a Clinton campaign Swiftboating operation to cast doubt on Sanders' civil rights activity. They needed a way to shore up their "African American firewall". The Clinton campaign's fingers are all over this episode. From Sharpton, to Lewis, to Capehart, to Time, to Cook.

[HooptieWagon]

42. I don't know Cooks motivation.

The other witnesses stepped forward (or were contacted), and identified the person as Rappaport. Their motivations were sincere, even if they were mistaken. They are Sanders supporters, but wanted Rappaport to be justly identified. He was also a civil rights activist at the time after all, and their friend (in one case, ex-husband).

The recent hit piece no question was part of a coordinated multi-front smear campaign, but the writer based his information on an old story that had already been debunked and retracted. His partisanship caused him to be sloppy....he was SURE the story was true, wanted to believe it true, and never did further research.

[tblue37]

55. And look at what Capehart said on "Hardball" about Bernie,

which shows that Clinton supporters really are trying to swiftboat Bernie over his documented support of civil rights going all the way back to the early 1960s. He says this in the first video in the post linked below:

. . . trying to say that he's been in the trenches, fighting for us, fighting for civil rights. . . . ."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511231856

[GoneFishin]

57. I am with you on this. I don't believe in the "luck" involved for anti-Bernie people to find a

"witness" who could identify a "mislabeled" 50 year old photo that would undermine Bernie's biggest strength, which is that he has been in the trenches all of his life. And, have it happen at the exact time when they need it if they are going to use it to smear Bernie.

Too many factors fell into place to be happenstance.

[kath]

63. I hadn't heard anything about Sharpton in relation to this Swiftboating operation. Could you explain

, please?

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Lyon is a known and established photojournalist, his work should not be defined by some guy's

pal who calls up on the phone one day to day that's not Mona Lisa but her cousin Bianca in that painting. It stinks to the heavens with rot. No two ways about it. You don't re-title somone's work without asking them.

[HooptieWagon]

64. It was sloppy on the archivist's part, but they corrected it.

When they first talked to Lyon, he insisted it was Sanders. But the archivist was apparently swayed by Rappaport's ex-wife (of 50 years ago). Afterward, Lyon found the documentation proving it was Sanders, and the archivist changed the caption back.

[merrily]

69. Woman is married to the guy for 5 years, fifty years ago. And, 50 years later, she is

so upset that Bernie is ID'd as the man in the photo that she gets the university to change the caption? (I thought it was his widow, not someone who divorced him 50 years ago! Even then, it didn't make sense.)

I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the fact that the photo was being circulated to compare with the photo of Hillary as a Goldwater Girl. NOTHING, I tell you, NOTHING!

[HooptieWagon]

74. No. Another woman initiated it.

Rappaport's ex-wife was one of a handful of Sanders supporting alumni who also thought it was Rappaport.

IDK original woman's motivation. She approached the archivist after seeing the photo on Sanders website...she may not known of its existence beforehand.

The follow-up witnesses (inc Rappaport's ex-wife) appear to have been motivated by giving proper credit to Rappaport, although their identification was mistaken.

[merrily]

75. Why is everyone, including Capehart, citing the ex wife then?

[HooptieWagon]

87. He is prejudiced to believe her, because of the candidate he and boyfriend support.

The archivist changed the caption back to Sanders in January, after photographer contacted them with just located files containing the documentation.
Time magazine then printed a retraction to their November story.
Capehart wrote his story in Feb, AFTER the archivist had changed the caption back to Sanders, and AFTER the Time retraction. He apparently never contacted the archivist, nor checked the Time retraction, nor contacted the photographer, as any or all would have said the photo had been proven to be Sanders. IDK if he interviewed any of the mistaken witnesses, but it appears to me he just regurgitated the erroneous Nov Time article with little or no further research to determine its accuracy. Quite simply, he WANTED the story to be true, because he and boyfriend (Long time Clinton staffer) are Clinton supporters.

[merrily]

88. That does not really answer my question, but you've given me a clue. I'll look for the

November TIME article online. Thanks.

My interest is in who started this fuss after 50 years and why. My guess is the Clinton campaign.

But now I have to stop posting for a while to go out for dinner.

[JDPriestly]

101. Did you provide a source for your information?

Also, I think that Time and all the media that disseminated the falsehoods about the picture, that is, the Rappoport version including Chris Matthews and others should give equal time and I mean equal time to correcting the record.

The photo, especially the hands, are so definitely Bernie Sanders. You don't have to have known Bernie then to know that is Bernie. I saw one photo of Rappaport. The hairline and other traits are very different. I would like to see more photos of Rappaport from that time. I cannot imagine that the picture could be thought to be Rappaport from what I have seen.

I do think that bigger apologies and corrections are needed on this. What has been done thus far was really just an awkward and unconvincing excuse on Capehart's part in my opinion.

Also, I understood that the picture had been recaptioned to name Rappaport in January. Do you have a source for your version of the story and timeline?

Thank you.

[HooptieWagon]

103. It was captioned Rappaport in Nov, that's why Time wrote a story then.

The caption was changed back to Sanders in January, when the photographer located his notes and contact sheets (large sheet showing entire roll of film in order of shot). Time printed a retraction then.

No specific link, I've tried to piece the story together from many sources. Tried to avoid guessing. Let me look for photographers website link.
Photographers blog:
https://dektol.wordpress.com
Time retraction:
http://time.com/4220480/bernie-sanders-disputed-civil-rights-photo-1962/

[JDPriestly]

105. I've seen the photographer's blog, but where did you, for example, get the information

that Rappaport's ex-wife was a source on this?

Where did you get the information about the month's in which the caption on the photo was changed? At one point I believe you said it was erroneously captioned for 50 years? Did I misunderstand you? Where did you get that information?

Where did you get the information that Rappaport's ex-wife is a Sanders supporter?

In fact, you are presenting what you claim are facts without explaining how you know them. We usually provide links to sources for the facts we discuss on DU. At least when we can.

If we don't, then it is assumed we are just theorizing or stating our opinions or stating facts that are easily verified or facts that are well known.

None of the exceptions to presenting statements as facts without links would apply here in my opinion.

I don't want to offend, but it would be very helpful if you could let us know how you know what you claim to know.

Thank you.

[HooptieWagon]

108. Here's original Time story.

http://time.com/4108379/bernie-sanders-photo-civil-rights/

I need to make a timeline correction. The people who approached the archivist did so in January 2015...long before Sanders was even a declared candidate, let alone a threat to Clinton. As of time of story, archivist hadn't dacided to change caption, but appears to have done so by January. Changed back when photographer located documentation.

[HooptieWagon]

110. Ex-wife's story

http://mobile.gazettenet.com/home/21025413-108/local-university-of-chicago-alumna-believes-1960s-bernie-sanders-archival-photo-is-actually-her

[JDPriestly]

117. Doesn't say that Sally Cook is a Sanders supporter. Says she is undecided.

How do you know she is a Sanders supporter? Is she really?

MSNBC should still do an equal-time retraction in my opinion.

[HooptieWagon]

119. Up thread I posted I didn't know who Sally Cook supported.

One more time. The group that approached the archivist LAST JANUARY (source: original Time story in Nov) could not have known at that time that a single photo was going to be a campaign issue, or be used by the Clinton campaign in a smear job. It just defies logic. It would take some pretty twisted CT to believe.

[JDPriestly]

127. I just hope that the corrections are made as prominently and as clearly as the false accusations

were made.

[HooptieWagon]

129. They rarely are.

Rep John Lewis walked back his comments. And fortunately the Swiftboat attempt was neutralized before it set sail. And the fucking idiot Capehart took an absolute beating on social media...he'll keep a low profile for a while if he knows what's good for him.
It appears the new thing is 'Finger-gate'. I expect that to get the howls of laughter it deserves.

[Enthusiast]

154. If MSNBC started doing equal-time retractions that's all they would get done. Boycott!

[truthseeker1]

140. Vets4Sanders has a pretty detailed summary with sources and links

Not sure if they have everything you're asking about but they've done a good job of capturing the whole story and staying on capehart.

[merrily]

80. Sorry, I don't believe that is her motivation 50 years after she divorced him or

he divorced her. I believe that is what she may have said, but I don't believe that was her motivation. Sorry.

[HooptieWagon]

89. Rappaport's ex-wife?

It seems quite possible to me that none of the witnesses knew of the photos existence until Sander's team posted it on his website. And it seems very plausible that they would contact the Univ of Chicago archivist, in their mistaken belief the photo subject was Rappaport, in order to give him proper credit. I'm excluding the original woman here, as her motivations aren't quite so clear.
The recent smear was obviously a political hit job, intended to discredit Sanders among AAs. No question there.

[merrily]

90. Married 5 years, 50 years ago and a Bernie supporter is so upset now that Bernie is

getting credit via a photo caption for standing in a corridor? Something a deceased ex from 50 years ago whom she dumped or who dumped her did? No other way but that to make sure the deceased ex from 50 years ago gets credit for his activism? So upset now that she can't even wait until the primary is over? She runs to UChi and gives interviews to Capehart. But, she really wants Bernie to win the primary?

Yeah, as I said, I don't find that the least bit plausible in terms of what I know about people, especially since I've witnessed so many at DU lying about supporting Bernie. Your results may differ and you, too, are entitled to your opinion, but I am not buying it. It's not even a little plausible to me.

BTW, just learned that Capehart's SO worked for Clinton. And no retraction yet. Trouble is, he pushed this story and MSNBC pushed this story over and over and over. And a retraction will be reported, if at all, once, briefly. Ok, gotta run.

[HooptieWagon]

91. Whoa. Slow down just a sec.

I don't know the original woman's motivation. She was identified as Sally Cook, UoC alumni, there the same time as Sanders et al. She has made no comments I've seen, so I can't discern her motivation. The archivist said they opened the investigation because she saw the photo on Sanders website, and contacted them with thought it was Rappaport.

The subsequent witnesses appear to have been classmates/acquaintances of Sanders and Rappaport then. Perhaps even friends. The ex-wife was an activist with Sanders and Rappaport, appears to have been Rappaport's gf at the time (later married for 5 years). They have made public statements that they support Sanders, but thought the photo was of Rappaport. You're correct, 50 years is a long time and memories get fuzzy. I don't see a nefarious motive here, just a case of wanting to honor their deceased friend but mistakenly identified him.

Yes, Capehart's SO works for Clinton campaign. Before that he was on Clinton's staff at State Dept, before that he was on Clinton staff at Clinton Foundation. He's worked for Clinton ever since he graduated. No question that his and Capeharts involvement was a political hatchet job. Thankfully poorly executed and easily debunked.

[merrily]

95. That my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean I am speeding or even that I am wrong.

It means only that you and I have different opinions.

[JDPriestly]

102. But not yet as debunked by Time and MSNBC as it was disseminated.

As a Sanders supporter (for real), I am asking all who repeated or told the false story, all who defamed Sanders by suggesting he was pretending to be someone he wasn't to give equal time in their media to the retraction of the story -- that is, time retracting the story that is equal to the time the gave to disseminate the false, slanderous and libelous story. I realize that Sanders is a public figure, but he is a candidate for president and no reputable news media source should treat him with such disregard.

That goes for Chris Matthews as well as for all the rest of those who knowingly or unknowlingly disseminated the story that the photo was not Sanders.

[HooptieWagon]

106. Time retraction

http://time.com/4220480/bernie-sanders-disputed-civil-rights-photo-1962/

[JDPriestly]

111. The Time article you are citing now says the caption under the picture was changed last year

to Rappoport's name.

And it does not confirm all your other "facts" either. As for anything Capehart claims ????????

[HooptieWagon]

115. I not backing Capehart one iota...he's a Slimeball hack.

I'm trying to work off a ph with a balky c&p function. There are TWO Time stories. The original was in Nov, I believe I provided the correct link. The story says the classmates of Sanders and Rappaport approached the archivist in January of LAST YEAR. Before Sanders declared a run, and long before he became any concern whatsoever of Clinton campaign.
The point I'm making is that the classmates don't appear to be part of a Clinton campaign conspiracy, unless they are clairvoyant and predicted a year ago that Sanders would be a serious threat to Clinton, having trouble reaching out to black community, and a smear campaign using that sole photo would be implemented.
I'm going to beg out now, as trying to chase the info down and c&p it on this balky ph is becoming tedious. I didn't take notes at the time I was reading the stories, but seeing the misinformation being posted I was trying to correct it from memory.

[rhett o rick]

109. And rationalizatin is the key to happiness, right? nm

[Admiral Loinpresser]

114. And D) slept with a Hillary operative. n/t

[mhatrw]

132. If that's what you truly believe, then answer all of these questions, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

[HooptieWagon]

135. Okay, let's assume it was a conspiracy.

13 months ago, the Clinton campaign knew Sanders was going to run, and knew he'd have trouble reaching Black voters. So they managed to find a group of Ssnders classmates at Univ of Chicago in 1963, and enlist their help. This group went through all the old archived photos, and picked the one they knew Rachel Maddow would show in a November interview, and asked the archivist to change the caption. This was last January mind you...the date the November Times story cited as being when the archivist was first approached. So, having their plan in place, the Clinton campaign patiently waited to spring their bombshell. Voila!
Okay, if you want to believe that...

[mhatrw]

141. LOL.

Some friends of Rappaport saw the Schmit comment on the University of Chicago website and agreed that it was Rappaport in the picture. The power of suggestion will almost always result in a few people going along.

When doing opposition research a Clinton operative saw the Schmitt post below the article with the photo, and the rest is ratfucking history. A conspiracy requires multiple people to conspire together. All this required was one Clinton ratfucker and a lazy, I'll print whatever you want me to in exchange for access corporate media that always operates more like a psyops than a news department.

[HooptieWagon]

142. So why did they contact archivist over 13 months ago?

Are they clairvoyant? They knew Sanders would be a threat?

[mhatrw]

143. One alunnus did that after seeing the picture in an online U of C alumni magazine

after reading Schmitt's internet comment about it and agreeing that she also "recognized" her old and dear friend in this picture some 50 years after the fact. That is simply the power of suggestion. Why not? Rappaport and Sanders looked alike and the picture in question does not clearly show Sanders' face. Once one old friend said, "That's Rappaport!" in a venue many other senior classmates were reading, it was almost inevitable that at least one or two others who were closer friends to Rappaport than they were to Sanders would agree.

A Clinton opposition researcher read the comment. investigated it, and found out about the archive change request. Some Clinton ratfucker put Frizell in contact with the small group who drove the archive change request, and then directed Capehart to ratfuck Sanders further on his "supposed" civil rights credentials at the height of the Clinton-directed John Lewis "I never saw him" ratfucking.

If you can't accept that as the most reasonable explanation for what happened, it's simply because you don't want to.

[leftofcool]

12. OMG! A Hillary operative. That is the funniest conspiracy theory yet!

[daleanime]

18. That there might actually be someone working for Hillary?

I haven't seen it personally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[geologic]

59. Yes indeed: "That is the funniest conspiracy theory yet!"...

[snort]

78. Oh shit you can't make that up!

Just searched for Goldwater pins and sure enough theres Goldwater pins with the arrow thing. Aint no photoshop. Whoops. WTF? Old memories?

[Cassiopeia]

26. And they were corrected before this fiction by Capehart came out.

[blm]

32. When? Univ of Chicago archivist corrected the incorrect caption/info given Capehart when?

It's absurd to think that Capehart would risk losing his job to DELIBERATELY push incorrect info that he KNEW was incorrect.

[Cassiopeia]

34. Yes, the photo label was corrected back to read Bernie Sanders in January.

[blm]

168. So source was STILL the UC archives - then TIME article - how is it a campaign lie from Capehart?

Or is that what some here would PREFER to believe?

[mariawr]

150. This was a long con, designed to cast doubt on Sanders' civil rights history ....

Sow doubt about something he already took credit for (and used on his site).
Get some one remotely connected to agree. Secretly get the UC caption changed by operatives using the connected patsies. Then have your Capehart "break" the story at the same time a concerted attack on Sanders' civil rights cred is being questioned. Don't bother to ask the photographer who TOOK the pictures until after his hit piece comes out.

More like Stephanopoulis and Carville action.

Capehart has finally jumped that shark. Couldn't stop with his smear of hands up don't shoot.

[cui bono]

10. No. The archives were changed fairly recently and Capehart did no research until he got caught.

He didn't bother to talk to the photographer. He STILL won't accept the truth. Go look at his Twitter feed. Below are some older tweets from Friday or Saturday morning. Yesterday he kept it up saying he says it's Bruce. He's shameless. And did you know his live-in boyfriend has worked for Hillary for some time?




.

[blm]

14. Like I said - his fault in this was not double-checking because archives can be wrong.

Perhaps now more photographers will go back and make sure that the archives are accurate.

I don't see why so many of you are unable to see exactly where the fault comes in to play. It seems you WANT it to be seen as way worse than it is.

He was going with the information he had when he first checked. How on earth was he supposed to know that the archives had it wrong?

[cui bono]

22. Why, days later, is he still not admitting it and not posting a retraction?

That coupled with his connections to the Clinton campaign make it extremely suspect.

.

[HooptieWagon]

25. The archives were changed back to Sanders in Jan. Capeharts story was Feb.

He apparently just regurgitated the November Time article, which had also been retracted by the time Capehart wrote his smear piece.
My guess is that the campaign approached him (through his boyfriend) with a big scoop to write about. He was excited to be 'the man' asked to be the 'journalist' that exposed this 'bombshell'. Probably already had cleared a place on mantle for the trophy. Unfortunately for him, he just regurgitated an old story that had already been retracted, and never did simple research to follow up. He's just a hack, and deserves every bit the pasting he's getting on social media.

[blm]

29. Well, that's what you want to believe, anyway.

Don't forget your bottle Feign-Feign.

[HooptieWagon]

44. It's the facts. Sorry that upsets you.

[blm]

162. You didn't cite facts - you posted YOUR CONJECTURE why Capehart repeated the archives'

caption.

This is one Sanders voter uninterested in making shit up to toss around Democratic forums. There are a few of us willing to stand up to the constant barrage of BS being posted as 'facts' by some here. Sorry that upsets you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. He is now at the center of the story

and he is getting pounded for it.

It's easy, retract the story, move on. The longer he takes, the harder this will be on him.

Suffice it to say. he writes the sky is blue and the sun is out. at this point many will not read what he wrote, or look out the window.

He has become the story... not a good thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. It's not 'the archive' that is a single collection that happens to contain Lyon's work as do many

other museums, libraries and collections. The archive of his work is his own. They did not ask him about his work at all. That is a basic wrong on every level, each time it happened. To go public as a 'reporter' pushing that tripe without having spoken to the photographer is utterly dishonest and unethical.

[SusanaMontana41]

73. "Check the archives"?

Which ones? Where?

Photos are stored in lots of places.

[merrily]

31. Not so. Bernie was the name on the photo until Capehart mixed in. Then, the University changed it.

Not, it's changed it back to Bernie.

[jwirr]

58. U of Chicago had it marked correctly until 4 alumni came

ahead and claimed that it was not Bernie. Rather than connection the photographer they changed it to Rappaport. They have now corrected it and put Bernie's name back on the picture.

I would really like to know why the 4 alumni did this?

[kath]

61. You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of that photo and its caption.

reading is your friend, ya know.

[juxtaposed]

167. they were changed in 2015 or early 2016

[HooptieWagon]

4. Not only are the lies easier to debunk,...

...but there's an immediate blowback to the liar on Twitter. Capehart is taking a beating, and has even started blocking accounts....can't face the music.

[RobertEarl]

5. Indeed

Reagan would be defeated in 3 days were he to be running today.

We all learned a few lessons from the bush wars and we have a good memory.

With social media we now have the advantage. The ma$$ media cringes when faced with our newfound power.

[dorkzilla]

65. Then how do you explain the relative success of Cruz?

Last night the GOP debate moderator was booed when he tried to correct Cruz's BS about how presidents don't nominate SCOTUS candidates in the last year of their administration. Booed. So don't think a creep like Reagan couldn't get elected again. Not everyone is interested in the truth.

[rocktivity]

85. The lack of relative success of Jeb.

rocktivity

[Hydra]

6. I said the same thing to someone the other day

Anything you say in public is FOREVER now. Old guard politicians still live in the era where they could say anything they wanted as needed to win the day, and the next day was an entirely new battle.

The feeling lives on in Team Hill's proclamation that what happened in the past can't be considered for today's dialogue...unless it helps their candidate.

[MisterP]

16. Rahm's election might be the last one where they could play all the voting blocs against

one another; they still think they can boast about drinking White tears to one audience and be the abuelita of another and keep those superpredators away from your suburb to another

but now we can compare notes, now there's a paper trail accessible to people other than wonks

[cali]

7. DU ignited the revolt against Capehart and Time

[blm]

15. Capehart and TIME were not the SOURCE - Univ of Chicago's archives had it wrong for decades….

and, yet, some of you want to pretend that Capehart and TIME had it wrong on purpose.

What happened to your sense of discernment?

[jeff47]

19. Uh, no. The archives had it as Sanders for decades.

The caption was only recently changed. Apparently, we are supposed to believe that two people swapped clothing between pictures at the same event.

[blm]

23. UofC got that from Rappaport's wife and changed it - TIME and Capehart only knew what they

they saw.

How many of you would have gone back and done a double-check given the exact same circumstances?

I just think you're going way over the top for something that was NOT exactly the fault of the journalists - some of you are acting as if they created the lie deliberately. You certainly are posting that way.

What ever happened to discernment?

[jeff47]

28. And UofC only changed it recently. Not decades ago, as you claimed above.

How many of you would have gone back and done a double-check given the exact same circumstances?

Every single competent reporter on the planet would have tried to contact the photographer.

I just think you're going way over the top for something that was NOT exactly the fault of the journalists

Checking out the story before you report it is basic journalism. Capehart failed to do that. He did not attempt to find out why the picture was labeled Sanders for decades. He did not attempt to find out why someone decided the caption must be changed after 40 years. He did not bother to contact the photographer.

This is exactly the fault of the journalist. He utterly and completely botched the most basic elements of his job.

Now, is he utterly incompetent, or was this intentional? Either one fits the available information.

As for source, this fits very nicely with David Brock's past acts. There is, of course, no proof at the moment.

[blm]

30. My mistake - see how easy it is to see a mistake? He checked with the ARCHIVES and was misinformed

and one RARELY gets bogus info from an archives.

You believe what you WANT to believe. Simple truth is sometimes too easy, eh?

[jeff47]

36. So you're going to go with incompetent then. (nt)

[blm]

38. I'm saying the archives misinformed him and he probably should have double-checked the info

before he made it public.

The exaggeration of the hurt here is reaching RW Feign-Feign proportions.

[cascadiance]

93. A real journalist interested in the truth would have asked if that photo was ever id'd as Sanders...

... and then found out that it was RECENTLY changed by someone in response to it being used as a part of the campaign.

Then a REAL journalist that didn't have an agenda like demonstrably Capehart has would have THEN seen the reason to find out from the original photographer what his account was, and he could have worked to have that photo attribution corrected himself by exposing that it was recently changed incorrectly at the archives.

THAT is what I would have expected from a real journalist and not someone interested in just doing a *slanderous* hit job!

Now whether there was a coordinated effort by him and those who got UC to change the attribution and/or the Hillary campaign hasn't been established, but REAL journalists should check to see if that is the case which would call in to questions if their motivations were more than just partisan and weren't also criminal acts of slander as well.

[merrily]

35. Huh? A reporter is supposed to double check before smearing someone. The pics of Bernie

with the Dean in the same clothes have been on line for years. Capehart himself pointed out the photo with the Dean, saying that was definitely Bernie, but the guy in the corridor with the students was someone else. He could contact the woman who divorced the other guy 50 years ago. He couldn't use his eyes to notice the two tall men with glasses were in the same clothes because he blew this up and attacked Bernie's supporters for allegedly spreading lies while he was at it?

[blm]

39. Huh? What part of the archives were captioned incorrectly escaped your discernment?

Or is discernment something that is no longer in style here at DU these days?

[merrily]

41. What part of the archives were CORRECTLY captioned until Capehart created this mess

escaped your attention?

[blm]

43. Now Capehart had Rappaport's wife go to Univ of Chicago and change the caption?

Passing that bottle of Feign-Feign around, eh?

[merrily]

47. Remind me how a caption prevented Capehart from comparing the photo he says is Bernie

with the other photo and noticing it's the same man in the same clothes before Capehart attacks Bernie AND his supporters?

Have you heard all the things Capehart claims he did to investigate this photo?

[merrily]

54. BTW, what did motivate Cook to get UChi to change the caption?

What made her so sure the man in that photo was Rappaport when it wasn't and why did it become so important to her to get the caption changed after 50 years? You don't find any of that odd? If not which bottle of unreality are you drinking from?

[artislife]

107. And they wonder why we think there is some dirty business going on

I swear, all the mud is being thrown from one campaign and on bogus sh*t.

I cannot stand that campaign. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

[blm]

156. YOUR reality that you've invested time and energy in is that Cook had UC change it to hurt Sanders

during the primary and Capehart deliberately furthered the lie.

Uh….simple truth too much for some to bear, eh?

This is why I question the credibility of SOME of Sanders' supporters. I can support Sanders, vote for him AND convince others to do so, and I do it without latching onto every perceived slight one can imagine. And some of you are HEAVY on the 'imagine', imo.

[Fawke Em]

45. I'm a former reporter.

Capehart is guilty of crappy journalism here. If the very story I was working on was about this photo and who was in it, yes, I would have gone back and double-checked. That's what reporters DO.

And, I happened to get in a Twitter spat with Capehart over this issue.

What bothers me the most is that he was even allowed to report on the Democratic nomination at all. The WaPo is also guilty of not pulling him from that beat given his husband works for Hillary's campaign, worked for her at State and worked for her at the Clinton Foundation. That is a clear conflict of interest and Capehart should never have been allowed to report on anything concerning either candidate for fear of an appearance of impropriety.

[merrily]

48. He is guilty of a lot more than crappy journalism. He pointed out on MSNBC that the guy

in the photo with the Dean was Bernie, but claimed the guy in the corridor with the students was someone else. Was he that blinded by his hatred for for Bernie and his supporters that he couldn't see the two men were identically dressed? And why the fsck did he blame Bernie's supporters for tweeting the photo?

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Did he block you too?

After I pointed to the SJP code of ethics, and quoted it, he fully blocked me

[snort]

83. Nice to see you guys getting under his skin.

He should be canned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. The only defense he has is that he is an opinion writer

the standards are a tad lower.

[snort]

86. Oh right, 'Entertainment'

Wink wink, nudge nudge...

[JoeyT]

122. So he fell back to the Fox News defense. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. The way he has been acting om the twitter

fox acts better.

[mhatrw]

133. If you really believe this was an innocent mistake, then please answer all of these questions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

[cali]

20. Capehart and Time used in to push a narrative

They used it to diminish Bernie's activism and make him look dishonest. Capehart never even attempted to find the photographer. And you are totally misinformed. The captions on those photos were labeled identifying Bernie for decades until 2014.


So fucking there.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[blm]

27. Rappaport's wife had them changed - that still doesn't make Capehart and TIME the source of a

deliberate lie, cali. You are so invested in the narrative YOU helped create that discernment is no longer of any value to you.

What a shame, cali. A real shame.

And you don't even give a shit about their underlying facts as long as you can ram your perception through for the applause. That makes you no better than those you're attacking for THEIR lack of accuracy.

[cali]

33. Wrong and obviously wrong as anyone who's followed

the shenanigans of Frizell, Capehart and Matthews, knows.

[blm]

40. No more discernment, eh? HAS to be worse because YOU say so.

Gotcha.

What a waste.

Feign-Feign.

[Fawke Em]

46. No. She didn't.

Sally Cook had them changed.

And, to my former reporter's mind, THAT is the story here.

Why?

What is her motivation?

If it had been the wife, I might could see the motivation, but a woman who knew both Sanders and Rappaport 50 years ago?

Nah. Doesn't pass the smell test.

[Rilgin]

99. You have been corrected often.

The picture was taken in 1962. It was labeled as Bernie Sanders -- CORRECTLY-- for the last 50 years.

The U of Chicago did not have it wrong for decades. It had it right ever since it was taken in 1962 and the archive established until November of 2016 at which time the archivist changed the caption to Rappaport on the basis of a request from a number of people claiming to have been classmates of Rappaport.

This identification was believed by the Archivist who changed the caption FROM Sanders TO Rappaport, The archivist probably did not think it was a big deal and it wasn't until Capehart used it as the factual basis of a media attack on Sanders. However, the archivist also did not contact the photographer who was there and took this picture.

Unfortunately, Capehart and anyone else connected with the smear did not count on the Photographer who both famous but also had absolute proof.

Time's role in the smear is not certain. It could be sloppiness. Time did not make absolute statements about the picture. However, Capeharts role in his first article was more troubling. He claimed an absolute that the picture was Rappaport -- an assertion impossible to make. He took a quote of a campaign manager out of context and he actively promoted the story as proof that Bernie is not honest rather than there was a mislabeled picture.

Capehart did not count on the fact that not only was the Photographer famous and ethical. But he had absolute proof in the form of other contemporaneous pictures. Rather than writing a new article that he and the wife were mistaken since he had now seen the proof, he doubled down on the claim that despite the forensics the wife's memory from 50 years ago trumped the pictures because fro the side, the picture showed someone with a sloping neck (I kid you not). The wife was married to Rappaport for only 5 years after dating 1 year. This was 50 years ago. Assuming a total innocent belief on the wife's part, the actual story is that contemporaneous photos prove that 50 year old memories can be mistaken which is proved by numerous actual studies.

Capehart's double down extends to misquoting the Photographer and the Wife. He claims a certainty on the part of Rappaport's ex room mate that was never expressed by him. He thought it was Rappaport but was NOT positive. Time reported it that way. Capehart lied about it. Capehart posted that every player in this drama supported Bernie. Although I have not verified it, I did see a post where the Wife expressed an opinion that seemed to indicate that she had not decided on a candidate but thought Hillary would be better for civil rights. If true, this is another outright misrepresentation on Capehart's part who is trying, against the photographic proof, to put forth an argument that the support for Sanders means they are correct.

Hopefully from the above you will see why so many of us think this is outright swift boating and think there is no excuse for Capehart. His original actions could almost be forgiven. It could have been just sloppiness and being wrong. However, his conduct since being informed by the photographer that he was pushing a factually false claim are absolutely reprehensible with no excuse.

[mhatrw]

134. Capehart obviously leaned on whichever Clinton operative fed him this story to buttress his case

He couldn't just walk it back because, by that point, both of them were in too deep.

[tk2kewl]

8. what we are quickly moving towards is an open source journalism

and i like it

[AtomicKitten]

9. Social media has changed the paradigm for the better.

[me b zola]

70. +++ Huge K&R

[SusanaMontana41]

77. kick kick kick!

[Helen Borg]

21. That is why... The establishment will try to control the internet.

...

[navarth]

51. That is the real danger.

...and please, Bernie, stay away from small planes.

[senz]

81. Yes. The open, free internet is now a threat to the establishment.

I hope we'll be ready when they try to block access.

[nolabels]

144. If they could then they would already be trying it

This subject has even came up once or twice even here at DU. The problem is what is called a network (which is what every group that can rub two dimes together has). This 'shutting down Internet' thing was even tried down there in a South American country seven or eight years ago. There was a bunch of little networks that popped up immediately, then in just a few days quite a few work-arounds. Then the whole effort just fell flat on it's face.

More over, a free, uncensored and unhindered internet is a threat to any DISHONEST establishment

[senz]

145. The only way I can imagine them succeeding would be

a real or contrived emergency involving national security. I hope the small networks you describe would work to keep people connected. Maybe it would be a good idea to establish such networks now just to have them ready if they're ever necessary. Or as a way of maintaining a degree of privacy in the event of heavy government surveillance.

[nolabels]

146. Fear is one of the last things they have in the quiver

Sort of like a 9/11 (which still is only partially debunked). Nah, don't worry about it, there would be way too much more of a loss to the side that pulled it than to those they would want to scare. I wouldn't even worry about anybody (or anything ) watching your or anybodies else's movements, thoughts or even business that much. There is a much too large data pool for even the largest government to keep track of. Yea, even if they did funnel it all in, there is no actual way to even contemplate it unless they were just looking for for few people or less.

It is just like the cop rolling down street, he is there to show the states or governments presence but unless there some real kind thing going on, he is just there. It's mostly up to us, the citizens to keep the streets and places where we live, that safe place

In my way of thinking if you are looking for a grand plot to take over that there is none really. It more of a amorphous blob that encompasses things that it can attach to. If you take it out it's reach, it doesn't even know it's there

[senz]

176. Interesting, worthwhile perspective, nolabels.

It has some soothing/liberating aspects for those of us who may have read too many dystopian novels.

Appreciate your sharing it.

[Helen Borg]

171. I think it's going to be more subtle...

They have been trying to make content selectively accessible a few times now... Luckily, Google and the biggies in the field are against this. But they really tried. And they will keep trying. Basically, try to make it impossibly expensive for smaller online operations to spread critical information.

[senz]

177. Is there an organized movement to counter this?

I would imagine groups like anonymous might be on it. But it would nice if there were a way for simple, ordinary, old folks like me to help out.

[Duval]

50. I haven't either! Thanks! eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Yeah, I feel we are at a different time now

and that means the PTB, and yes they are real, will try harder to close down the internet

[Amimnoch]

60. Yes. Bully tactics and ridiculo ad adsurdum won the day.

Congratulations, you successfully bullied a gay minority who reported facts as they were given. Successfully ignored a Sanders spokesperson's own statements. Was totally comfortable with Sanders not even addressing the article. Attacked and disparaged the statements of a Civil Rights activist widow as if she wouldn't recognize her own husband of decades for a photographer who is "remembering" a photo from decades past is beyond question. And, last but not least attacked and silenced one of the greatest Civil rights activists of the 60's, and last remaining living member of the Big Six.

Certain persons of the WWII era would have been most impressed.

Despite my disgust on how this all played out, I do owe some thanks. These happenings have helped me win a few of my long time activist friends back to the best side over the weekend.

[geologic]

62. "Bully tactics and ridiculo ad adsurdum" abound...

[NastyRiffraff]

92. +1,000

Well said.

The faux outrage here reminds me of religious people whose feelings are hurt if you don't bow to their god.

[zappaman]

97. +10,000

[DesertRat]

98. Well said

[Kalidurga]

118. So he's a gay black man and his reporting can't be judged

because it's bullying? Really, is that where you want to go? To a place where if you are a member of a protected group you can't be deemed as ever doing anything wrong and being called on it?

[liberal_at_heart]

128. and these attacks and dirty tricks by the DNC has turned my bisexual daughter who was

a Democrat because she thought they would fight for her rights into an Independent. She does not appreciate how the party has decided for her who the nominee should be. That is her decision, not the party's.

[mhatrw]

136. If that's what you truly believe, then answer all of these questions, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511216872

[Amimnoch]

149. I'll do my best.

So what made it so important to her that she felt she needed to change the caption in the University of Chicago archive in order to identify the individual at a sit in that took place over 40 years ago as some long dead acquaintance rather than as Bernie Sanders?

Well, you had someone who was a relatively (to now) unknown Senator from Vermont. He's become extremely well known. The archive photo's in question were brought out as a (rather minor) part of a national campaign. From that, you had alumni who, at least including one person named Richard Schmitt came forward and stated that it was Bruce. I don't know this Bruce man, I haven't seen any follow up on him retracting his belief, or if he has any connections to any campaign. But apparently he was one of the Alumni who was there, and stated he held that belief. So, the only people they had on hand who had the direct experience made the statement, and the change was made. You also had Bruce Rapport's roommate at the time Bruce Stark back up that statement. You also had this Sally Cook, and Robin Kaufman, who stated belief that it was Bruce. It wasn't "important" that they change the caption, but as near as I an tell, there was enough people (in my estimation, especially the roommate Bruce) to go ahead and change it. Was there anyone who was there, and on hand, who stated otherwise? Was there a cotradictory statement anywhere among the alumni? If so, I haven't seen it. Was there anyone stepping up either leading up to, or after who was there that said "no, that is not Bruce, that is indeed Bernie."?

Who then told Sam Frizell, Time magazine's Clinton pool reporter, about this trifling photo flap?

If that's been brought to light yet, I haven't seen it. Do you know?

What induced Sam Frizell to devote 1000 words to this complete non-story without making any attempt to contact the original photographer?

Do you know that no attempt was made? These were 1960's university level political photo's, was the photographer even known? Even then, especially with the roommate of Bruce making his statement, and combining it with the statements of the other Alumni, I can reasonably see where case for due diligence.

How did Sam Frizell manage to locate three other University of Chicago alumni besides Sally Cook to cast doubt on Sanders' being the person leading the sit in in the photo? Who found these old friends of Rappaport and served them up to Sam Frizell?

As is typical in Journalism, Sam provided a story, and not the details on how he got it, so I can at best suppose here. This does beg the question: Did Sam seek out people to verify the photo? Why? Or, did someone contact Time and tell Time that it wasn't Bernie, and then they started looking? Of the people Sam talked to, and I'm assuming it was more than 4 people, did anyone contradict the accounts of the roommate/best man at Bruce's wedding? Or, were those the only 4 people that could give a statement affirming an identity?

What then induced the WaPo's Jonathan Capehart, the live in partner of a rich Clinton campaign staffer and longtime Clinton employee, to pick up this complete non-story and spin it into a direct attack on Sanders' integrity without making any attempt to contact the original photographer?

An actual article existed (the Time piece) that substantiated all of the statements in his article? Really, if you consider an article, that uses facts as they were known based off of one of the giants of the industry, and even closes with the fact that there is no question about Sanders being in the movement as a Smear, I can only wonder what you will do once the Repbulicans go on the attack. This was not a smear. A smear would have been an article using the photo and suggesting as evidence that Bernie wasn't an activist at all, and was misrepresenting himself. It wasn't gaining any traction until your side gave it traction.

Why did corporate cable news then trot out Capehart on several different shows to promulgate this complete non-story?

Umm, you are the guys that complained for the last majority of the last Year that Sanders wasn't getting any air time. Well, now you have him in the headlines. He's now an interesting story. That will be stories that promote and attack him. Welcome the the national stage Senator.

And, what's up with that "ratfucker" section? You reference Capehart's own words as a paraphrase, but I'm completely missing that from the articles you linked. Capehart called sanders a ratfucker?

Now, perhaps you can answer one question that has been lingering with me on this issue:

Why is it that Tad Devine, Sanders spokesperson, and the campaign could not say if it was or wasn't Bernie? Tad went so far as to say he showed it to Bernie and still couldn't say 100% for sure it was Bernie. I can say with 100% certainty that when I look at photo's that were taken of me decades ago, I know if it is me or not.

If the question is so strong that even Sanders and his campaign spokesperson can be 100% sure who is in that photo, it's not at all a reasonable stretch to understand why there was confusion about it. Certainly enough doubt to warrant not going into Teaparty style attacks on a Journalist who wrote a story based on an actual article from an established source, and stuck to the facts as they were available, and even went out of its way to state that there is no question of Sanders involvement and accomplishments in the movement itself? In your minds this warrants threats against his person? Threats against his career? Assassination of his character?

Why hasn't Sanders just come right out and said.. yes, that is me? He's normally so outspoken about everything, but this he goes through a spokesperson and the statement is "we're not sure it is Sanders" and a Journalist is just expected to bury the story?

At the end of the day, does it matter that much to you if it is or isn't him? Do you question his involvement in the movement? Neither the Time piece nor the WP piece questioned that at all. Hell, both articles went out of their way to reaffirm that Sanders, regardless of the photo was a leader in that movement. Apparently Bruce Rapport and Bernie Sanders were both heavily involved together. Apparently they look so much alike that even the widow of Bruce believed it was her husband and not Bernie (unless you are questioning that she's also a shill for Hillary?)

This was a hatchet job, but it wasn't the Time piece or the WP piece. Congratulations, you (collectively) did silence the press from even having the discussion. Reagan would have been proud. Regardless of if that photo was a photo of Bruce or if it was a photo of Sanders, the Sanders hatchet team has judged and decided and it is Bernie in the photo regardless of who is in the photo.

[questionseverything]

158. you ignore the fact that we all know exactly who the photographer was

and that he has produced more photos of same event that clearly show it is bernie

so there is no discussion to have except as to why we no longer have a 4th estate ,

why a second rate opinion writer, capehart should be allowed air time to trash a Democratic presidential nominee with no fact checking involved

[mhatrw]

161. Schmitt made an internet comment on the U of C alumni magazine article that he thought it was

Rappaport in the 50+ year old photo, not Sanders.

Through the power of suggestion, several of Rappaport's old U of C alumni friends agreed with him. One contacted the archive, asked the archive to change the caption, and probably provided some evidence that other alumni, including Schmitt, also agreed with her.

So far all we have is an honest mistake. Once one old friend said, "That's Rappaport!" in a venue many other senior citizen classmates were reading, it was almost inevitable that at least one or two others who were closer friends to Rappaport than they were to Sanders would agree.

A Clinton opposition researcher read Schmitt's comment online, investigated it, and found out about the archive change request. Later, some Clinton ratfucker put Frizell in contact with the small group who drove the archive change request to set up the ratfucking to be sprung on Sanders when the timing was optimal for the Clinton campaign. There is no earthly way that Frizell happened upon this complete non-story on his own and then went to the trouble of contacting all of these alums without having been served up this info on silver platter by a Clinton operative.

Then the same Clinton ratfucker directed Capehart, whose husband owes his entire career to Clinton and who will gleefully write whatever the Clinton campaign asks of him, to ratfuck Sanders further on his "supposed" civil rights credentials at the height of the Clinton-directed John Lewis "I never saw him" ratfucking. Capehart argued not just that Sanders was not the guy on the picture, but also that this utterly trivial fact even if true (which it is NOT) directly impugned Sanders' integrity. When ambushed with this attack on MSNBC, Tad Devine did what any circumspect Sanders surrogate would do and downplayed the issue. After all, it was a 50 year old photo, and the clear evidence for Sanders' long and early involvement with civil rights activism does not rely on one disputed documentary photo.

Now the photographer has presented evidence that CLEARLY shows the the person in the photo is indeed Sanders. The archive and Time have issued corrections. Only hapless Clinton lackey Capehart still insists on trusting 50 year old suggested memories over the documentary photo evidence.

If you can't accept that as the most reasonable explanation for what happened, it's simply because you don't want to.

[Laughing Mirror]

147. Capehart's fraud deserves every bit of light exposing it

Don't even attempt to start up with bullshit about "bullying" a "gay minority." I happen to be a gay minority who has called out Capehart on his disgraceful smear of a civil rights activist, a real one, running for president. Go ahead and call me a bully too.

[still_one]

155. Thank you

[valerief]

66. Any retraction on the teevee yet? Nah, didn't think so. nt

[Uncle Joe]

67. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Nightjock.

[rocktivity]

68. It didn't happen overnight

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

It's something I first noticed ten years ago:

(T)here's new skin in the game: the Internet has given the voters themselves the power to shake their dependence on the MSM and define their own roles within the election cycle...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1202358

which came into full blossom at the 2012 GOP convention:

Barely before Clint was finished, Twitter was set ablaze...Nobody sat around waiting for the MSM or the network-connected blogosohere to instruct them on how they ought to react...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1248477

But if Obama had let the Rethugs have their way with net neutrality, not so much.


rocktivity

[hopemountain]

71. the revolution is not being televised because

it is taking place on the ground by word of mouth and across the interwebs.

[WillyT]

72. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[CharlotteVale]

76. K&R

[senz]

79. We, the "little people" successfully fought this smear.

If electronic and social media channels had been as well developed in 2004 as they are today, the swiftboating of John Kerry would have been nipped in the bud.

But we have to be constantly vigilant. Progressives could use an anonymous-style network of media activists. (Perhaps we already have one, don't know.)

[jfern]

82. The Hillary campaign is running as if it's not 2016

They think they can win with corporate media hacks pants on fire lying like Capeheart. We the people will let the fucking truth be known.

[840high]

94. Amen. Yes we will.

[Beausoir]

112. Bernie stole campaign data. He lied about his endorsements. He lied about his civil rights record.

According to people who were actually THERE.

He's a wanna-be. He was not even a Democrat until he got the thirst for power. Then...he decided the Democrats were a means to his end.

He's a power hungry run of the mill politician.

[mhatrw]

137. Smoe Hillary Clinton supporters like to lie a lot. nt

[amborin]

113. K&R

[Jopin Klobe]

120. Couldn't have said it better ...

"I was not sure if I would live to (see) a real political revolution but I am positive it is happening right now" ...

... and I'm SURE to see it through ...

[krawhitham]

131. Tell that to the GOP field

They never tell the truth and always get away with it

[truthseeker1]

139. " I have never, EVER loved a politician more than this remarkable man."

Your last line.....I feel exactly the same way! He is the closest thing to a perfect candidate I've ever seen.

Social media is empowering citizen journalists and it's very exciting! The times they are a changin.

[monicaangela]

151. He started it...

on Twitter. Why not start a campaign on twitter to get him to apologize first and then print an apology in WaPo. Maybe we should also complain to Jeff Bezo. We could hit him in the pocket on two fronts with a boycott against Amazon and the Washington Post.

[truthseeker1]

160. Already happening on Twitter #retractCapehart nt

[monicaangela]

172. Thanks!

This allows me the opportunity to join in and voice what I feel about this irresponsible reporting. I hope the action causes Capehart to have second thoughts the next time he decides to try to do a hatchet job on someone.

[raouldukelives]

152. K&R Those stuck playing the old MSM corporate shell game.

Are increasingly left in shock by the voices of We the People.

What they could once easily dismiss on behalf of their owners is now banging at the door.

[Enthusiast]

153. K&R! I'm happy to see this post has hundreds of recommendations!

[SammyWinstonJack]

166. KnR

[juxtaposed]

169. does skinner still feel this is a non-issue b/c no one can be sure if it is sanders or not?

Skinner should just come out and do the right thing and say, yes it is and has always been bernie in the photo..

[Plucketeer]

170. Bernie is fabulous, but he's really just a catalyst

Bernie is US and WE are Bernie. It only took a person of integrity and courage to show us who we are.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. Ive noticed a lot of Clinton supporters are in deep denial that it is, in fact, the 21st century.

Oh well. Cant go back, and you cant stand still.....